Case Reference: 3259564

Appeal Decision
Inquiry held on 26-29 January 2021 & 9-16 February 2021
Site visit made on 17 February 2021
by Claire Searson MSc PGDip BSc (Hons) MRTPI IHBC
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 17 March 2021
Appeal Ref: APP/E2001/W/20/3259564
Land North and East of Mayfields, The Balk, Pocklington, East Riding of
Yorkshire
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an
application for outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against East Riding of Yorkshire
Council.
• The application Ref 18/04097/STOUT is dated 14 December 2018.
• The development proposed is Outline planning permission for up to 380 residential
dwellings (Use Class C3, including up to 25% affordable housing), local centre with
Children’s Day Nursery (Use Class D1), Convenience Store with up to 280 square
metres of retail floor space (Use Class A1) and 60 bed care home (Use Class C2). New
areas of formal and informal public open space to include allotments, community
orchard, children’s play area, skate park and multiple use games area. Introduction of
structural planting and landscaping, surface water flood mitigation and attenuation and
associated ancillary works. All matters to be reserved with the exception of two
vehicular access points to be provided from The Balk.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted for up to 380
residential dwellings (Use Class C3, including up to 25% affordable housing),
local centre with Children’s Day Nursery (Use Class D1), Convenience Store
with up to 280 square metres of retail floor space (Use Class A1) and 60 bed
care home (Use Class C2), new areas of formal and informal public open space
to include allotments, community orchard, children’s play area, skate park and
multiple use games area, introduction of structural planting and landscaping,
surface water flood mitigation and attenuation and associated ancillary works,
all matters to be reserved with the exception of two vehicular access points to
be provided from The Balk, at Land North and East of Mayfields, The Balk,
Pocklington, East Riding of Yorkshire in accordance with the terms of the
application, 18/04097/STOUT is dated 14 December 2018 subject to the
attached schedule of conditions in Annex C.
Procedural Matters
2. The application was accompanied by a location plan (ref 7216-L-05A), along
with plans showing detailed access arrangement and highways works (ref
P18102-00E and P18102-200B). Following discussion at the Inquiry, it was
agreed that the indicative development framework plan (ref 7216-L-07 Rev B)
should be treated as an application drawing.
3. This appeal is against the non-determination of an outline application with all
matters reserved except for access. The Council resolved that they would have
refused the planning application and provided 2 putative reasons for refusal
relating to conflict with the spatial development strategy and highways
matters.
4. The Inquiry was jointly held with an appeal at Land North West of Swanland
Equestrian, West Field Lane, Swanland.1 While the sites are geographically
separate and distinct, for consistency the appeals were heard together due to a
shared main issue relating to broad principles around the development plan
spatial strategy, housing land supply and affordable housing. That decision is
subject to a separate decision letter, however my conclusions relating to the
above broad matters are common to both appeals. For ease, the Swanland
Core Documents (SCD) were the primary reference bank, with Pocklington
specific Core Documents (PCD) used where necessary.
5. Pocklington Town Council (PTC) was granted ‘Rule 6’ status at the Inquiry.
They presented several arguments related to the main issues along with
unsustainable travel, character and appearance, infrastructure and other
effects.
6. The second putative reason for refusal given relates to highways matters. The
scheme originally involved alterations to the junction of The Balk (B1247)/
A1079, outside the site (plan ref 18102-004). Following an objection by
Highway Development Management, the appellant proposed that mitigation
could be achieved by a new length of road and roundabout to the south-east of
the existing junction, which would be closed (plan ref P18102-011D). This
does not form part of the appeal proposals and would require separate
permission.
7. A ruling was given on this matter following the Case Management Conference
on 30 November 2020. It was ruled that the highway scheme involving the
realignment of the southern part of the B1247, as the subject of a negatively
worded condition, would be appropriately considered at the Inquiry. This was
subject to a formal consultation on the proposed amendments which I have
had regard to.
8. During the Inquiry, it was agreed between the Council and the appellant that
safe and suitable access could be achieved on the basis of a package of
mitigation measures set out in the amended plans. This was confirmed in the
Statement of Common Ground (SOCG).2 There was, however, disagreement in
terms of detailed design matters over the new roundabout and PTC also set out
their concerns. I address this matter later in my decision. In light of the
agreement I have not, however, dealt with this as a main issue as it is no
longer necessary.
9. An appeal for the same development proposals was previously dismissed at the
site.3 I consider this in my decision.
10. A unilateral undertaking (UU) was submitted in draft form, discussed at the
Inquiry and subsequently finalised. I come to this below.
1 APP/E2001/W/20/3250240
2 Highways Statement of Common Ground Dated 5 February 2021
3 APP/E2001/W/16/3165930 dated 2 November 2017 (SCD6.16)
Main Issue
11. In light of the above, the main issue now relates to:
i) Whether the site is suitable for development, in the light of the
locational policies in the development plan and other material
considerations, including the housing land supply position.
Reasons
Site and area description
12. The appeal site is a broadly flat agricultural field of around 18 hectares, located
to the south of Pocklington. It has a drainage channel running through the
site. To the west, the site abuts The Balk (B1247) which provides a link road
from the A1079 into the Town Centre. Burnby Lane is also located to its north
eastern boundary.
13. To the north, the site borders a new residential development and Public
Footpath No. 8 which links The Balk to Burnby Lane. A small fragmented
woodland area ‘Duck Belt’ is found to the north of the site and a larger area of
woodland ‘Duck Wood’ is located to the south-east. This separates the site
from the Willows Water Fishery and holiday lodge park. To the south is a
private access drive and an isolated detached dwelling.
14. To the north and north east of the site is the current developed edge to
Pocklington. The wider landscape is relatively flat and open, with small pockets
of development. Pocklington is a town with a variety of shops and facilities and
good access to transport routes.
Proposals
15. In addition to the site being developed for up to 380 dwellings, including 25%
affordable housing, the site would include a 60-bed care home, day nursery
and convenience store. There would be areas of formal and informal public
open space to include allotments, community orchard, children’s play area,
skate park and multiple use games area. Landscaping would also be provided,
including reinforcing Duck Belt along Burnby Lane to Duck Wood. Attenuation
ponds are also proposed. Access would be from 2 separate points along The
Balk, and offsite highways works would include the provision of a 3m wide
shared cycle track and footway along The Balk, new bus stops and footways
along Burnby Lane.
Planning Policy Context
16. The development plan includes the East Riding Local Plan Strategy Document
(LPSD) which was adopted in April 2016 and the East Riding Local Plan
Allocation Document (LPAD) which was adopted in July 2016.
17. LPSD Policy S3 seeks to focus development in a defined settlement network in
order to ensure that the right level of development takes place in the right
places. Pocklington is identified by this policy as a Town. The policy states that
the Towns will provide the local focus for housing, economic development,
shopping, leisure, transport, education, health, entertainment, tourism,
recreation and cultural activities for the town and its rural hinterland and that
they support and complement the Principal Towns.
18. The supporting text confirms that settlements in this tier provide a good range
of services and facilities, although not as extensive as the Principal Towns, and
provide the main focal point for development in rural areas. They comprise of a
mix of coastal and market towns and the vitality of rural areas will be
supported, ensuring a network of centres that provide services, transport,
housing and employment opportunities for a wide rural hinterland.
19. Development limits for the settlements listed in Policy S3 are also referenced
and depicted on the Policies Map. The appeal site is located outside, but
adjacent to, the development limits for Pocklington. The newly developed site
to the north was an allocated site for housing in the LPAD, referenced as POC-
G. Land outside of the defined limits is classed as countryside and
development in such locations is restricted to a number of exceptions by LPSD
Policy S4.
20. Policy S5 states that the housing requirement is at least 23,800 dwellings
(1400 per annum) and sets the housing distribution for the settlement network
over the plan period. For Pocklington this is set at 1250 dwellings. This policy
also sets a requirement of 335 affordable homes per annum as part of the
overall provision.
21. In combination, these policies establish the overall housing requirement figure,
and a strategy for the pattern and scale of development across the District.
22. PTC are currently preparing a Neighbourhood Plan, however this is in an
emerging stage and as such there are no formal policies as of yet relevant to
this appeal.
The Spatial Strategy
23. Due to the location of the site outside of the defined settlement limits, it is
accepted by the appellant that the development would be in conflict with the
abovementioned strategic policies S3 and S4 of the LPSD.
24. There was a minor disagreement in terms of Policy S5, based on the findings of
the previous Inspector who concluded that there was no conflict with this as
the policy allocations it sets out are a not a cap on development. Mr Carvel for
the appellant considered that on this basis there was also no conflict for the
current appeal, although the appellant’s equivalent witness for Swanland did
accept that conflict. In any case, this difference of professional opinion was not
a major point taken by the appellant who accepted the conflict with the
development plan as a whole. Thus, it is the nature of the conflict and the
weight given to that is in dispute. As S5 is a policy which sets the numbers
and distribution of housing, I consider that there is a conflict.
25. Within the LPSD, the Council took an employment led approach in determining
the housing requirements set out in Policy S5 of 1400 dwellings per annum.
The plan recognises that East Riding is a high demand area for housing and the
scale and distribution of housing was also considered in respect of Hull, so as
not to undermine its regeneration.
26. However, when calculated from the LPSD base date, there has been a
consistent shortfall of dwellings against the LPSD requirement which is now to
the tune of 3149 dwellings. The LPSD did anticipate the rate of housebuilding
would be below the requirement during the early years of the plan period, but
with Figure 5 depicting from 2016-17 onwards the target would be continually
exceeded. This was exceeded in 2018/19 with 1404 dwellings, but decreased
in 2019/20 to 1241 and the general trend is that of a shortfall. That said, the
level of completions is on an overall increasing upward trend which is set to
continue.
27. In terms of distribution, the identification of Towns, along with Rural service
Centres and Primary Villages, was influenced by geographical distribution and
the role of settlements in the sub-area in which they serve. The LPSD was
examined in 2015 and the examining Inspector’s report4 stated that the
approach taken, which included the professional judgement of Officers, was
reasonable and justified and he was of the firm view that the hierarchy of
settlements is justified and settlements were placed in an appropriate category.
28. For Pocklington, up until April 2020, 865 dwellings (net) have been built. An
additional 774 (net) dwellings are also consented and anticipated to be built
out within the next 5 years. The housing has thus already exceeded the
planned requirement as specified in S5, by around 389 units, part way through
the plan period. The addition of a further 380 units as proposed would increase
the total in Pocklington to 2019 dwellings which would represent a 60%
increase from the requirement. This would be significant and would further
unbalance the established hierarchy in Policies S3 and S5.
29. Taking the above together, there is a clear mismatch here between the LPSD
requirement, which for the District has consistently failed to meet over the plan
period so far, and yet delivery is in excess of 60% for Pocklington. This
position is also similar for Swanland whereby there is an excess against the
policy requirement of around 70%.
30. Paragraph 5.20 of the supporting text of the LPSD states that a review of the
plan, including Policy S5 would take place by no later than 2020 to consider
housing delivery across Hull and East Riding, along with the latest evidence on
housing need. This was noted by the examining Inspector to the LPSD who
considered it to be essential to the soundness of the plan.5 Work is underway
with the publication of an Options Document in 20186 which focussed on the
housing requirement and a review of allocated sites. Questions were also put
in respect of the distribution and settlement network with an option to retain
the existing approach but to consider changes to the role or nature of
settlements as part of the review. Further consultation is due in Spring 2021,
although no specific timeline was specified.
31. The fundamental purpose of the locational policies in the LPSD is to ensure
sustainable development which effectively manages the scale and distribution
of new development. This is achieved by directing most new development to
areas where there are services, facilities, homes and jobs, and where it can be
served by the most sustainable modes of transport. Pocklington as a
settlement has a good range of services and facilities.7 I was able to see those
services and facilities myself during the site visit. Pocklington Town Council
raised concerns in respect of the accessibility of the site to those services and
facilities. This was in specific regard to walking distances. The walking
distances are all above 1.2km, and as such would be more than current
4 Report on the Examination of the East Riding Local Plan: Strategy Document dated 25 January 2016 SCD7.05
5 Paragraph 90 of the Examiners report SCD7.05
6 Local Plan Review Options Document November 2018 SCD7.35
7 Details of which are set out in the Statement of Common Ground between the Council and Appellant dated
December 2020, paragraphs 4.9
guidance.8 However, the site itself would include onsite service provision in
terms of retail and a nursery. The provision of bus stops and cycleway are also
proposed. The site would thus be served by sustainable modes of transport.
32. Overall, the development would conflict with LPSD Policies S3, S4 and S5 which
set the scale and distribution of development. In identifying that conflict, I
recognise that there is a mismatch in terms of the locational distribution of
development, which in Pocklington is already significantly exceeding the LPSD
figure, against the consistent under-delivery of the district-wide LPSD housing
requirement and the identified, but yet, incomplete, review of the LPSD Policy
S5.
Other Considerations
Housing Land Supply
33. There was a dispute as to whether the presumption in favour of sustainable
development applies, as set out in paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy
Framework (the Framework) due to a lack of housing supply. Paragraph
11(d)(ii) states that where policies are out of date, permission should be
granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significant and
demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the
Framework taken as a whole. It was common ground that 11(d)(i) was not
relevant in this appeal.
Current situation
34. Paragraph 73 of the Framework requires that Council’s should identify and
update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites to provide a minimum of 5
years worth of housing against their housing requirement set out in adopted
strategic policies. Where strategic policies are more than 5 years old, and
unless the strategic policies have been reviewed and found not to require
updating, this should be calculated against their local housing need (LHN). The
LHN is the number of homes identified as needed through the application of the
Standard Method (SM), which is detailed in National Planning Practice Guidance
(PPG).
35. The agreed supply period for the determination of this appeal is 1 April 2020-
31 March 2025. The LPSD is not yet 5 years old, although it will become so on
the 7 April. The SM calculation would then kick in for the LHN.
36. As set out in the relevant Statement of Common Ground (SOCG)9 and the
updated scenarios (INQ31), against the LPSD housing requirement the Council
is currently unable to demonstrate a 5-year supply, with the Council
considering they can currently demonstrate 4.96 years. This position has
changed from the publication of the Housing Land Supply Position Statement
(HLSPS) dated December 2020 which gives a figure of 5.0 years. This was due
to concessions made in respect of some of the sites assessed as deliverable by
the Council, including from communal accommodation.
37. Due to debate over the deliverable sites included in the Council’s calculation,
the appellant considers that the Council can only demonstrate a supply of 4.17
8 Including Planning for Walking by the Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation PDC10.10 and National
Design Guide (PDC10.8) which recommend between 800m-1200m walking distances.
9 Statement of Common Ground (Housing Supply) dated 19 January 2021
years against the LPSD requirement. Nevertheless, even at the Council’s
preferred figure, the so called ‘tilted-balance’ under paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the
Framework would be engaged.
Hybrid Calculation
38. The Council’s position is that as the LPSD will be over 5 years old imminently, a
hybrid figure which is based on the LPSD requirement for year 1 and the SM for
years 2-5 should be used. This position was adopted for the joined appeals
and is not reflected in the most recent published HLSPS.
39. Under the SM calculation, the housing figure is considerably lower than the
adopted plan requirement – a reduction from 1400 to 90910. Even when adding
in a calculation for a shortfall and 5% buffer (the former is not a requirement
of the SM calculation) the Council’s position is that 6.15 years supply can be
demonstrated. While the appellant disputes this approach and accounting for
differences relating to site deliverability, the appellant considers that under this
method, the Council could demonstrate 5.17 years supply. It is on this basis
that the Council submits that the tilted balance should not apply.
40. Parties agreed that this appeal, and indeed the linked Swanland appeal,
provide the first time such an approach will have been formally tested.
However, two appeal decisions in support of the Council’s position were put
before me.
41. The first is a Secretary of State (SoS) decision known as VIP Trading11 which
was dated 3 June 2020. Here, the SoS disagreed with the Inspector that the
presumption in favour of sustainable development applied due to the supply
being between 4.49-4.99 years. This was on the basis that on adoption of the
draft London Plan, revised housing targets would result in a 5-year housing
land supply and it was noted that the housing targets in the draft plan were not
due to be modified.
42. The second decision was for a site at Clacton-on-Sea12 dated 7 January 2021.
While the Inspector acknowledges that, based on the SM the Council couldn’t
demonstrate the requisite 5-year supply, due to the imminent adoption of a
new local plan with a different housing requirement figure indicating 6.14 year
supply, the Inspector opted to rely on the new figure. Again, it was held that
the presumption in favour of sustainable development did not therefore apply.
43. I accept there was a departure from paragraph 73 of the Framework in both
examples. However, these decisions are materially different to the appeals
now before me. Significant weight was given to the emerging housing figures
and more specifically, the Inspector and SoS in both examples engaged
paragraph 48 of the Framework which sets out criteria for determining what
weight to give to emerging plans in accordance with their stage of preparation,
the extent of unresolved objections, and consistency to the Framework.
44. The Council argues that paragraph 48 provides no basis for distinguishing the
present circumstances, but there is no such direction in the Framework, or
indeed in the PPG relating to the circumstances presented as part of these
appeals in the way that there is for emerging local plans in paragraph 48.
10 SM requirement figure is taken from OR Proof of Evidence as it is not specifically detailed in the SOCG or INQ31
11 APP/G6100/W/19/3233585 (SCD7.62)
12 APP/P1560/W/20/3256190 (SCD7.77)
45. The Framework adopts a clear period of 5 years in terms of housing land
supply, and also in terms of local plan preparation and review.13 Paragraph 73
of the Framework is clear that a minimum of 5 years worth of deliverable sites
should be calculated against either the housing requirement in the adopted
strategic policies or the local housing need where the strategic policies are
more than 5 years old (my emphasis). As part of this, the SM was introduced
in 2018 in order to be simpler, quicker and more transparent and I am of the
firm view that to adopt a hybrid approach would undermine that efficiency and
transparency.
Future Supply
46. It should be noted that there was broad agreement that from 7 April 2021, the
Council are highly likely to be able to demonstrate a 5 year supply based on
the full SM calculation, although a precise figure could not yet be determined
due to all the data required not yet being available.
47. I accept that in the very near future, this is a matter which would no longer be
for debate as the need to use the SM will automatically kick in. This would also
be as certain as the adoption of the new requirement figures in the
abovementioned cited appeals. However, based on my reasons above, that is
itself not a reason to justify departure from paragraph 73 in such
circumstances as presented here.
Conclusions on Housing Land Supply
48. To sum up, the LPSD requirement should be used and based on this, the
Council are unable to demonstrate 5 years supply of housing. In accordance
with footnote 7 of the Framework, the policies which are most important for
determining the application, that being S3, S4 and S5, are deemed to be out of
date. The tilted balance thus applies.
49. I will return to the matter of the extent of the shortfall and the weight to be
given to this in light of the imminency of the 5-year anniversary of the LPSD in
my section on the planning balance.
Character and Appearance
50. The site has a predominantly open aspect and is relatively featureless as a
large expanse of open arable landscape with vegetation limited to Duck Belt
and Duck Wood at its perimeter to the north east and south. The development
at POC-G presents a somewhat hard urban edge with fencing and limited new
tree planting along Footpath No8. The site is relatively contained in its wider
landscape. Visibility is localised and taken mainly from The Balk.
51. The transformation of an open field to that of a built development would have
an inevitable effect on the countryside. However, the future landscaping as set
out in the Development Framework Plan responds positively to the local
environment. This is because it would provide an improved edge to the existing
settlement extent, in spite of its further encroachment out into the countryside.
52. I note that minor adverse effects were accepted by the appellant and the
Council and greater harm identified by PTC. However, it is my view that any
effects would be highly localised and there would be no unacceptable harm.
13 For example Framework paragraph 33
Impact on Local Businesses
53. Willow Waters comprises of fishing lakes and holiday lodges which are accessed
via Burnby Lane. There are also private residential dwellings and agricultural
buildings within the same area. It is separated from the site by Duck Wood, an
access track and a landscape bund to the south western corner.
54. I visited the site in winter and from within Willow Waters, views of the appeal
site can be seen from different vantage points. The fishery area and the
holiday lodges, are, however, largely screened due to the thickness of the
deciduous planting. Greater views are taken from the private dwellings.
55. Views of the development would be seen from the Willow Waters site, however
I am mindful that the Development Framework Plan shows separation of built
development from the boundary and bungalows built in the area that is most
exposed. The holiday lodges themselves also have a south easterly aspect
towards the lakes, facing away from the site.
56. Based on the above analysis, I am satisfied that the development would have
no material impact upon the operation or attractiveness of Willow Waters
Fishery site.
Non-Designated Heritage Assets
57. The site lies within a highly sensitive archaeological landscape. Findings have
been made in nearby allocated sites. As an outline proposal, I am content that
this is a matter that could be dealt with by condition.
Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land
58. The land is classified as Grade 2 & 3a best and most versatile (BMV) land.
However, as much of East Riding is Grade 1 or 2, the loss of this would be
limited. The conflict in this regard would be minor adverse.
Infrastructure/Cumulative Impact
59. Broad local concern is raised about the infrastructure capacity of Pocklington to
cope with the existing development levels and the proposed additional 380
units. I have dealt with topic specific matters related to cumulative effects in
my decision. While I note that Pocklington is set to expand significantly, there
is no justification to withhold consent based on this specific point. Education
and highways contributions are also incorporated into the UU and the
development would not be able to commence without the link road/roundabout
due to the Grampian condition that I will address below. There is limited
evidence to support claims that there would be an adverse effect on town
centre parking capacity, or that the development would harm vitality of the
town centre.
Water Supply
60. As a site for major development which is unplanned and unallocated, Yorkshire
Water raised capacity concerns. However, these matters can be dealt with by
separate legislation. Sewerage and drainage can also be dealt with by
condition.
Planning Benefits
61. For the avoidance of doubt, in ascribing weight to the benefits I have used the
following scale: limited, moderate, significant and substantial.
62. The generic nature of benefits was raised at the Inquiry. The previous
Inspector at the site considered the generic nature of benefits was no more
than would be expected from any development and considered that they
attracted only limited positive weight.
63. Generic or otherwise, a matter which is attributed either positive or negative
weight, must be included in the planning balance. The fact that something is
commonplace does not in itself justify a reduction in weight, which must be
assessed on its own merits and on the basis of evidence. It is this exercise to
which I now turn to, below.
Housing Delivery
64. While Pocklington has a significant level of planned development, the delivery
of housing is an undisputable benefit of the development in a District where the
Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year supply. Given the scale of the
site, and due to the highways works requiring separate consent, whether the
development will occur within 5 years of the date of the decision is unclear, but
in any case, the delivery will assist in the overall supply in the District.
65. The actual supply is somewhere between 4.17 years (the appellant’s position)
and 4.96 years (the Council’s position). The difference between the parties
relates to the appropriate windfall allowance to be included and the difference
in approach as to whether a number of the supply sites should be considered
as deliverable or not having regard to the definition set out in the Glossary to
the latest iteration of the Framework and the PPG14. This includes in relation to
lead in-times.
66. For the purpose of this appeal, I shall adopt the supply position of the Council.
That should not be interpreted as any indication that I necessarily agree with
that position. I simply adopt it as a ‘least-worse’ scenario in order to assess
the weight to be given. I am also mindful that the housing land supply position
is time-limited and in a matter of weeks, the Council will be able to
demonstrate an adequate supply.
67. The Government’s objective is to significantly boost the supply of housing and
this would normally attract significant weight. However, the time-limited
nature of the somewhat small shortfall in supply, reduces the amount of weight
and I consider that housing delivery attracts moderate weight, rather than the
significant weight the appellant sought to argue.
Affordable Housing
68. As already identified in my decision, LPSD Policy S5 sets a requirement for 335
affordable homes per annum as part of the overall 1400 dwellings per annum
target. Here the dispute between the parties goes to the weight that should be
given to the provision of affordable housing from the development.
69. It was recognised by the examining Inspector for the LPSD that the affordable
housing need in the East Riding is significant and pressing, but that the
14 Paragraph 007 Reference ID 68-007-20190722
requirement set in Policy S5 falls short of the identified need which was
calculated as 552 pa. A compromise was thus reached given that the delivery
of affordable housing would necessitate huge levels of growth.15 Paragraph
6.23 of the supporting text to the LPSD states that a review of the plan would
be triggered where targets were not met.
70. Common ground was reached between parties in that there has been a
sustained shortfall against the LPSD target in each year of the plan period
which amounts to a deficit of 1657 affordable homes against the Policy S5
requirement. It was also agreed that at 1 December 2020, there are currently
7245 households on the Council’s Housing Register, which has increased from
6553 as at 1 April 2020. Of those, 2741 households are identified as being in
bands 1-7 which is of greatest need. There is also agreement that there has
been a rise in people housed in temporary accommodation from 8 households
in April 2019 to 59 households in April 2020 – a 637% increase.16
71. For Pocklington specifically, the high levels of growth that have occurred as
discussed above have also given rise to a healthy supply of affordable units.
However, in light of the figures cited above, and setting aside the other points
of debate between parties relating to the banding, waiting times and
anticipated supply, in my view it is clear that the ‘significant and pressing’ need
recognised by the examining Inspector, is now acute. While the offer of 25%
affordable housing would only meet the policy minimum in LPSD Policy H2, the
weight to be given to it as a benefit cannot be anything other than substantial.
Highways Works
72. As referenced above, there is now broad agreement between the parties that
there is a technical mitigation solution to address capacity concerns for the
Balk/A1079 junction by way of the provision of a new link road and
roundabout. Updated position statements from the main parties in respect of
highways matters were made at the round-table discussion on this issue.17
73. The land required for the mitigation is in the control of the appellant. However,
it does not fall within the ‘red-line’ site boundary, is not formally part of the
appeal proposal and requires separate consent.
74. As part of the detailed design measures, 3 options have been presented by the
appellant. The differences relate to whether there is a single or two-lane exit
for eastbound traffic and the length of any 2-lane exit. The Council considers
that only the 2-lane exit for 100% of the required length is appropriate for
highway safety measure, the appellant disagrees. PTC raised similar concerns
to the Council.
75. The detailed design is not a matter before me, nor are concerns regarding the
effects of the road on ecology and character and appearance raised by local
residents. However, I am generally satisfied that an appropriate mitigation
scheme could be secured via a Grampian planning condition. The effect of this
condition would preclude the development from commencing until the
highways improvements, including the provision of a new link road and
roundabout between The Balk and the A1079 have been agreed.
15 Paragraphs 154 &155 of the Examining Inspectors Report (SCD7.05)
16 Figures all taken from the Affordable Housing Statement of Common ground dated 25 January 2021
17 INQ26, INQ27 & INQ28.
76. In terms of weight to the works as a benefit, the appellant considers that the
highways works should attract very substantial weight, while the Council and
PTC consider this to be neutral, and PTC accept the improved footpaths as a
benefit.
77. Many of the highways works provide mitigation (including the provision on a
footpath and cycle path along The Balk) and address capacity issues. However,
the new junction would serve not only the new residents of the site, but also
other nearby new residential developments. The footpath works to Burnby Lane
would also benefit the residents of the POC-G site and thus would also form a
wider benefit.
78. The A1079 is a strategic road which links York and Hull. It carries large
numbers of traffic, including heavy goods vehicles. At the time of the visit
there was a steady stream of traffic using this highway. The Balk forms one of
the main routes into Pocklington. There is a separate roundabout junction to
the north west along the A1079, which also provides access into Pocklington
along Hodsow Lane.
79. When assessing the allocated sites for the local plan, the desirable and
preferred route from allocated sites was via Hodsow Lane. However, the
Council’s Highways Department noted in their consultation response18 that they
had evidence that there was a very significant increase in traffic on The Balk
between 2012-2017 and national traffic forecast growths estimate further
growth to be between 17-51%. The annual rate of growth on The Balk is
currently twice the highest case national forecast. It was also noted that
further allocated and approved development would create additional pressure.
80. Evidence from the appellant’s highways witness also suggests that highway
works are required at this junction currently and in the future significant delays
will be experienced at the junction. Moreover, there have also been a number
of accidents recorded at the junction, although it is acknowledged that these
were prior to a change in its layout.
81. The provision of a new link road and roundabout would, in my view, not only
provide mitigation to the additional flows created by the development, but
would also help to address current capacity issues. Therefore, it would form a
wider benefit in terms of highway capacity and safety.
82. There is a dispute in respect of the detailed design options and while that is not
a matter specifically before me, it is clear that there are deliverable options
which can bring about much needed improvements. I recognise, however, the
need for separate consent and the nature of the dispute may delay the delivery
of such benefits.
83. Drawing everything together, I consider the highways works would attract
moderate weight.
Local Centre Benefits
84. Separate to environmental mitigation in respect of accessibility, the provision
of a children’s nursery and retail store in the proposed new local centre would
bring about economic and social benefits, including job creation. The care
home of 60 beds would assist in meeting an identified need in the local area
18 PCD4.17 Highways Development Management Consultation Comments (undated)
and would free up other market housing. I give these moderate weight due to
their limited scale.
Employment and Revenue
85. In addition to the employment benefits relating to the local centre, there would
be employment benefits in terms of the provision of jobs during the
construction phase. In the longer term there would also be increased spending
within local shops and facilities by the new population.
86. There was debate in terms of the New Homes Bonus (NHB) and Council Tax
(CT) revenue generated by the development whereby the Council consider that
Council tax will be mitigation and NHB sits alongside the planning system and
is not intended to encourage housing development which would otherwise be
inappropriate in planning terms.
87. Even if I was to concede the Council’s point relating to the NHB and CT
revenue, the employment benefits are matters to which I give moderate weight
over the limited weight ascribed by the Council.
Green Infrastructure and Open Space
88. As set out on the development framework plan, around 6 hectares of green
infrastructure would be provided within the site. However, this would provide
landscape mitigation and the effect would be neutral.
89. Open space provision would include a community orchard, allotments, play
area, skate park and multi-use games area. These would be likely to attract
wider users from the new adjacent developments, given its indicative position
towards the northern boundary of the site. I give these moderate weight.
Biodiversity
90. As set out within the Ecological Appraisal19, the site is of limited ecological
value. There would be proposed enhancements to biodiversity including
introducing species rich grassland, scope for a wild-flower meadow, new tree
belts and hedgerow planting, and water bodies associated with the attenuation
pond. Bird and bat boxes would also be provided. While such matters would
represent benefits and would be secured by condition, the scope and scale of
such enhancements are, as yet, undeterminable as part of the outline scheme.
Such benefit thus would attract limited weight at this stage.
Planning Obligation
91. The UU was considered at the Inquiry. It was engrossed on 23 February 2021.
I have considered the various obligations with regards to the statutory
requirements in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
Regulations and the policy tests in paragraph 56 of the Framework. It should
be noted that the Deeds contain a “blue pencil” clause in the event I do not
consider a particular obligation to be justified in these terms.
92. The obligation would secure the provision of 25% affordable housing in
accordance with an approved affordable housing scheme which would set
details of the numbers, type, tenure, mix, location, and management. I also
note that it makes provision for an Affordable Housing Commuted Sum which
19 Ecological Appraisal December 2018 PDC1.6
would payable in the unlikely event that a Registered Provider is not secured
for the affordable housing provision. This is a necessary requirement that
meets the specified provision, as referenced above, and as such is justified.
93. Education contributions are also included for primary and secondary provision.
Highway contributions are also sought in terms of bus stop contributions and
TRO contribution. The development would result in an enlargement of the local
population with consequent impacts on local schools and highways
infrastructure.
94. It also includes obligations relating to open space and play areas, in terms of
triggers for delivery and transfer to a management company in accordance
with an approved management plan. Outdoor sports facilities commuted sums
and public space protection orders sums are also included. For a development
of this scale, I am satisfied these are necessary to deliver and manage the
requisite open spaces and play areas.
95. For all these reasons I am satisfied that all the obligations are necessary,
directly related to the development and fairly related in scale and kind. They
comply with Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations and paragraph 56 of the
Framework. They can be taken into account in any grant of planning
permission.
Conditions
96. A list of planning conditions was drawn up by the main parties and discussed at
the Inquiry. My consideration has taken account of paragraph 55 of the
Framework and advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. In particular, I have
had regard to the Government’s intention that planning conditions should be
kept to a minimum. I have changed the suggested wording in some cases to
ensure that the conditions are precise, focused, comprehensible and
enforceable.
97. I have attached conditions limiting the life of the planning permission and
setting out the requirements for the reserved matters, in accordance with the
requirements of the Act. For clarity, I have required development to be in
accordance with the relevant plans, and it is necessary to require that the
eventual scheme will be in broad compliance with the Development Framework
plan to ensure that the development fulfils its intended purpose. For the same
reason, I have included conditions for the maximum number of units
(residential and C2 units) and the size of the retail store to be developed at the
site. A condition requiring a phasing strategy is also necessary considering the
scale of the site.
98. Conditions relating to land contamination and remediation are necessary in
light of the agricultural use of the site.
99. A condition for a wildlife enhancement plan is necessary to protect ecological
interests and improve biodiversity. Although landscaping is a reserved matter,
it is appropriate at this stage to ensure that protective measures for retained
trees and hedgerows are provided during construction to protect wildlife and
visual amenity. Thus, I have slightly amended the suggested wording to make
this relevant for site clearance work, rather than tying into the reserved
matters details.
100. Due to the prospect of archaeological finds on the site, a condition requiring
a written scheme of investigation and other matters is necessary. While the site
has a low flood risk, conditions are necessary for foul and surface water
drainage. Conditions relating to foul water connections and water supply are
covered by the Water Industry Act 1991 and thus are not necessary.
101. The construction period would inevitably cause some disturbance and
inconvenience to those living and working in the area as well as to road users.
A single combined condition requiring Management Plans for construction,
traffic, environment and biodiversity is necessary. The detail prescribed in the
Council’s preferred individual conditions is excessive. and in any case the
Council would have the overall control in discharging (or otherwise) the plans
required in this condition. A separate condition setting out construction hours is
also necessary for the same reason.
102. Grampian conditions for the off-site highway works are necessary, for
reasons as discussed above. With regard to the condition which deals with the
access road and roundabout, I have used the appellant’s suggested wording.
The Council’s condition would be unnecessarily restrictive and could prejudice
detailed design matters which would be subject to separate consent and
negotiations as part of that process. As written, the condition would not
preclude the Council’s preferred option in any case were that found to be the
most appropriate design.
103. Affordable housing is secured by way of Planning Obligation, as discussed
above. This also includes the provision of a commuted sum if necessary.
Accordingly, I consider this to be the most appropriate way of securing
affordable housing at the site. A condition is not therefore necessary.
104. Conditions relating to the provision of pedestrian and vehicular access to
each dwelling, electric vehicle charging points, highway details for non-
residential uses including delivery facilities, parking spaces, noise assessment,
landscape management plan, provision for a mix of housing types, and
provision of open space relate directly to reserved matters and thus go beyond
the scope of an outline consent.
105. I acknowledge the importance of such matters, but the Council would have
control on these matters at the reserved matters stage. Some of these (for
example open space) are also detailed on the Development Framework plan,
which is the subject of a condition, which should also give some comfort and
certainty. Accordingly, I consider that the suggested conditions would be
unnecessary.
Planning Balance
106. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be
determined in accordance with the development plan unless material
considerations determine otherwise. The Framework makes clear that the
planning system should be genuinely plan-led.
107. The site is outside of the defined settlement boundary and conflicts with the
spatial strategy of the LPSD, as set out in policies S3, S4 and S5. This harm is
a pure policy harm in that I have found no unacceptable harm to landscape
character and appearance, and I have concluded that there are no issues in
respect of accessibility and infrastructure. Such matters underpin the need for
a spatial strategy. I have recognised that Pocklington in particular is already in
excess of its housing requirement, against a wider district-wide under delivery.
The policy harm weighs against the proposal, as does the limited harm in terms
of the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land. The lack of harm to
these other matters is neutral in the balance, as is the effect upon heritage
assets and water supply.
108. Due to the housing land supply position, at this time, the tilted balance as
set out in paragraph 11 of the Framework is engaged. This means granting
permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and
demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the
Framework taken as a whole.
109. I note the Council’s and PTC’s significant concerns that to allow the appeal
would undermine the whole plan-led system. However, I have examined the
benefits and have explained why I consider them relevant and the reason for
the varying degree of weight that I have attributed to them. Benefits include
affordable housing (substantial weight), general housing delivery (moderate
weight), employment and revenue (moderate weight), highways works
(moderate weight), local centre benefits (moderate weight), open space
(limited weight) and biodiversity (limited weight).
110. Drawing the above together, I conclude that the adverse effect of policy
conflict and loss best and most versatile agricultural land would not
significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of these proposals.
111. Finally, a great many other appeal decisions were put before me in evidence
and cited in support of the parties’ respective cases. In particular, and in
addition to the previous appeal decision at this site, the main issue in relation
to the conflict with the spatial strategy has been examined a number of times
by different Inspectors in the East Riding District, along with the issue of
housing land supply.20 In all the examples, the appeals were dismissed.
However, each decision turned on its own evidence, as has my decision.
112. In all of the cases, the supply position was different and evidence has
changed to reflect the passage of time. In respect of the previous Pocklington
appeal decision, some of my findings on specific matters of detail have been
consistent with the previous Inspector, and others have differed. I have
employed my own reasoned planning judgement in this case, and indeed in
respect of the Swanland Appeal, with which my overarching findings have been
consistent.
Conclusion
113. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all matters raised, I
conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
C Searson
INSPECTOR
20 Including APP/E2001/W/18/3207411 dated 5 June 2019 (SCD6.09)
APP/E2001/W/16/3151699 dated 13 March 2017 (SCD6.14)
APP/E2001/W/16/3165880 dated 17 August 2017 (SCD6.15)
ANNEX A: APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Charles Banner QC aided by Instructed by East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Matthew Henderson of Counsel
They called:
Owen Robinson Principal Planning Policy Officer
MA MRTPI
Jennifer Downs Principal Development Management Officer
BA (Hons) MRTPI
Richard Ellam Divisional Director Pell Frischmann Engineers Ltd
BEng CEng MCIHT (Pocklington only)
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Thea Osmund-Smith of Counsel Instructed by [APPELLANT]
She called:
Ben Pycroft Director Emery Planning Partnership
BA (Hons) Dip TP MRTPI
James Stacey Senior Director Tetlow King
BA (Hons) Dip TP MRTPI
David Schumacher Director Prime Transport Planning
MSc, DipMS, CMILT, (Swanland only)
MCIHT
David Stoddart Director Prime Transport Planning
BA (Hons) CMILT, (Pocklington only)
MCIHT, MTPS
John Mackenzie Planning Director – Gladman
BSc DiP TP MRTPI (Swanland only)
Stuart Carvel Planning Director – Gladman
MTCP (Hons), MRTPI (Pocklington only)
FOR POCKLINGTON TOWN COUNCIL:
Richard Wood Director at Richard Wood Associates Ltd
BA (HONS) BPl MBA MRTPI
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Michael Thompson Spokesperson, Swanland Against Gladman
Jan Brumby Swanland Local Resident
Derek Shepherd Chairman of Swanland Parish Council
Paul Lisseter Williamsfield Developments Ltd
ANNEX B: INQUIRY DOCUMENTS
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE INQUIRY (Combined with Swanland)
INQ1: Affordable Housing Statement of Common Ground
INQ2: CIL Compliance Statement (Swanland)
INQ3: Housing Land Supply Consolidated Document – disputed sites.
INQ4: Council’s Opening Statement
INQ5: Appellant Opening Statement
INQ6: Pocklington Town Council (R6) Opening Statement
INQ7: Cllr Derek Shepard Statement (Swanland)
INQ8: Jan Brumby Statement plus photographs illustrating traffic issues
(Swanland)
INQ9: Appeal Decision ref APP/E2001/W/20/3259974 (Swanland)
INQ10: Paul Lisseter Statement
INQ11: Pocklington CIL Compliance Statement
INQ12: Email dated 27/01/2021 from Paul Lisseter re Williamsfield (Hutton
Cranswick) appeal.
INQ13: Letter from ERYC Chief Executive
INQ14: James Stacey Errata Correction Sheet
INQ15: Email from Andrew Pearce re water mains pipe dated 25 January 2021
INQ16: Swanland Site Visit Itinerary Rev A
INQ17: Swanland Travelling Draft Conditions 3 February 2021
INQ18: Swanland Schedule of weighting 4 February 2021
INQ19: Pocklington Conditions 4 February 2021
INQ20: Pocklington Schedule of weighting 4 February 2021
INQ21: Pocklington Site Visit Route v2
INQ22: Appendix D – TRICS analysis comparison version 3 (Swanland)
INQ24: Wythall TRICS
INQ25: Appellant response to Swanland TRICS data 4 February 2021
INQ26: Richard Ellam Transport and Highways Position Statement (Pocklington)
INQ27: David Stoddart Public Inquiry Spoken Evidence Examination Note
(Pocklington)
INQ28: Richard Wood Transport Round Table Position Statement (Pocklington)
INQ29: Gladman Developments Limited v SSHCLG & Corby BC & Uttlesford DC
[2021] EWCA Civ 104
INQ30: Updated draft Unilateral Undertaking (Swanland) plus email dated 11 Feb
2021 with additional SUDS condition.
INQ31: Housing Land Supply Scenarios document
INQ32: Walking distances to bus stops 11 Feb 2021 (Swanland)
INQ33: CIL Compliance Statement v3 (Pocklington)
INQ34: Planning Obligation Summary (Pocklington)
INQ35: Planning Obligation Summary (Swanland)
INQ36: Email dated 12 February 2021 from Jan Brumby re Swanland Doctor’s
Surgery.
INQ37: Closing submissions of behalf of East Riding of Yorkshire Council and
separate authorities relied on in the LPA closing submissions bundle.
INQ38: Closing submissions on behalf of Pocklington Town Council
INQ39: Closing submissions on behalf of the Appellant and appellant reply to
closing submissions table.
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE INQUIRY
Updated list of conditions – submitted 23 February 2021
Certified copy of the Unilateral Undertaking - submitted 23 February 2021
ANNEX C: CONDITIONS
1) Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, (hereinafter
called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority before any development takes
place and the development shall be carried out as approved.
2) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the
local planning authority not later than 3 years from the date of this
permission.
3) The development hereby permitted shall take place not later than 2 years
from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be
approved.
4) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
with the following approved plans:
7216-L-05A Location Plan
P18102-001E Proposed Access Arrangement
P18102-200B Proposed Footway Provisions
5) Any reserved matter applications made pursuant to the development
hereby permitted shall demonstrate compliance with the Development
Framework plan (drawing no. 7216-L-02 rev B).
6) No more than 380 residential dwellings and 60 C2 units shall be built on
the site.
7) The retail store shall be limited to a maximum of 280 square metres
gross internal floor area and shall be limited to convenience retail use.
8) In the event that the development is phased, a phasing plan showing the
proposed phases of development, including the provision of affordable
housing and open space shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any
development. The development shall be carried out as approved.
9) Before the development commences, an investigation and risk
assessment of land contamination shall be completed by competent
persons and a report of the findings submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include an appropriate survey
of the nature and extent of any contamination affecting the site, and an
assessment of the potential risks to human health, controlled waters,
property and ecological systems. Where unacceptable risks are identified,
an appropriate scheme of remediation to make the site suitable for the
intended use must also be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority.
10) Where remediation is necessary, and unless otherwise agreed in writing
by the local planning authority, none of the dwellings shall be occupied
until the approved scheme of remediation has been completed, and a
verification report demonstrating the effectiveness of the remediation
carried out has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The verification report shall include a description of
the works undertaken and a photographic record where appropriate, the
results of any additional monitoring or sampling, evidence that any
imported soil is from a suitable source, and copies of relevant waste
documentation for any contaminated material removed from the site. In
the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the
approved development, that was not previously identified, it must be
reported immediately to the local planning authority. An appropriate
investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken, and where
remediation is necessary, a remediation scheme must be prepared by
competent persons and submitted to the local planning authority for
approval. Following completion of measures identified in the approved
remediation scheme, a verification report that demonstrates the
effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority.
11) Within one month of commencement of the development (on each phase
where applicable), a Wildlife Enhancement Plan (WEP) shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The WEP shall
be compiled by a suitably qualified ecologist and include:
ii) A timetable for implementation;
iii) A detailed plan showing the locations and specification of the
enhancement measures;
iv) The enhancement measures outlined in Sections 5.49 to 5.55 of
the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (FPCR Environment and
Design Ltd, February 2019);
v) A 25% bird box to building ratio;
vi) A 25% bat box/tube/adapted tile to building ratio;
vii) Details of the means of enclosure to demonstrate that boundary
treatments will not result in a loss of habitat connectivity through
the development, by creating 'hedgehog highways' which provide
holes under boundary features for hedgehogs to pass through;
viii) Hedgehog friendly garden features including hedgehog houses
which should be positioned round the site within hedge bases;
ix) Insect boxes and log piles to increase the habitat for local
biodiversity;
x) The landscaping strategy shall incorporate wildlife friendly
landscaping throughout the site and utilise British species of local
provenance wherever possible.
12) No site clearance, preparatory work or development shall take place tree
and hedgerow protection measures have been put in place in accordance
with the Figure 3 Tree Retention Plan and Appendix B Protective Fencing
Specifications of the Arboricultural Assessment dated November 2018
and include an arboricultural method statement prepared in accordance
with the recommendations of section 6 of the Arboricultural Assessment.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
plans and details.
13) Before the development commences, details of a surface water drainage
scheme for the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. The submitted scheme shall:
i) include a site survey to determine if there is a piped land
drainage system within the site/sites and include details of any
mitigation works necessary to preserve flow from any adjacent
affected sites;
ii) be designed to secure separate systems of drainage for foul and
surface water. If it is proposed to discharge surface water to the
public sewer network, it must be demonstrated to the satisfaction
of the local planning authority that other means of surface water
drainage have been properly considered and are not reasonably
practicable;
iii) provide information about the design storm period and intensity,
the method employed to delay and control the surface water
discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent
pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters;
iv) include a timetable for its implementation;
v) provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of
the development which shall include the arrangements for
adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any
other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme
throughout its lifetime.
The development shall be carried out and maintained in accordance
with the approved scheme and no dwelling shall be occupied until the
surface water drainage scheme serving it is operational.
14) No development shall commence until an initial written scheme of
investigation (WSI) for archaeological investigation has been submitted
to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall
include an assessment of significance and research questions; and:
i) The programme and methodology of site investigation and
recording
ii) Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and
recording.
iii) The programme for post investigation assessment and
mitigation recommendations.
iv) Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the
analysis and records of the site investigation.
v) Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and
records of the site investigation.
vi) Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to
undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of
Investigation.
Development shall take place in accordance with the approved WSI.
Unless otherwise agreed beforehand in writing with the Local Planning
Authority, the development shall not be occupied until the site
investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed in
accordance with a programme of works set out in the approved WSI and
the provision made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results
and archive deposition has been secured. The archaeological programme
shall be carried out as approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing
beforehand with the Local Planning Authority.
15) Prior to the commencement of development, the following shall be
submitted to and approved by the local planning authority:
• A Construction Method Statement (CMS)
• A construction traffic management plan (CTMP)
• A construction environmental management for biodiversity plan
(CEMP: Biodiversity)
• A construction environmental management plan for groundwater
(CEMP: Groundwater)
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
CMS, CTMP, CEMP: Biodiversity and CEMP: Groundwater, unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
16) During the construction phase of the development, no machinery shall be
operated, no process shall be carried out and no construction traffic shall
enter or leave the site outside the hours of 07.30 hours to 18.00 hours
Monday to Friday, nor outside the hours of 08.00 hours and 13.00 hours
on Saturdays, nor at any time on Sundays or Public Holidays, unless
previously approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
17) No dwelling or building shall be occupied until the off-site highways works
shown on drawings P18102-001E and P18102-200B have been
implemented.
18) The development hereby approved shall not commence until a scheme
for the access route connecting the new junction on the A1079 to the
existing public highway at The Balk has been submitted to and approved
by the local planning authority. The new junction shall be implemented in
accordance with, and operational at the time set out in the agreed
scheme. The new junction shall:
(i) provide as a minimum a three-arm roundabout in accordance with
an appropriate scheme at the time of detailed design;
(ii) ensure the closure of the existing junction of the A1079 with The
Balk junction; and
(iii) make suitable provision for access for the existing development
along The Balk.
End of schedule (18 Conditions)